Actually it's not. Your have to pass a test and then you are licensed by the state. Your driving privileges can be revoked at any time by the state----OBTW--driving a motor vehicle isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

You will note that I have never said flying or driving are constitutional rights.

But (at the risk of hijacking the thread) here's the 6 trillion dollar question: is healthcare a right? I mean, it's not in the Constitution...

Yes the Constitution is only a "living document" when it comes to theft of property, abortion and gun rights. When it comes to transportation though, a horse and wagon will still do you fine!

Indeed.

It's a funny thing this "rights" question. Some will say "you have no right to fly on an airplane" (or drive on the public roads) but the entire airline industry is supported by money taken from me and other tax payers by force. By extension are they saying you have no inherent right to your property and the money you have earned? If this is the case then they are saying you essentially have no right to yourself, your body, your person or the fruits of your labor. Now mind you, this is all a logical and consistent train of thought. But those who argue some of these things argue that you do have certain rights to your body and your self that cannot be infringed upon by the government. I don't think you can have it both ways.

I was listening to Tony Kornheisers AM radio show this morning and referring to people who are upset about being groped patted down he said something like they were missing the goal of the whole thing which was to keep the plane from being blown up. But we know thats not the goal. If that were the goal, we would ban air travel. That is the only certain way of achieving the goal. (And it would be very successful it that really were the goal.)

But the other point is that its not the right goal. The goal isnt to stop x y or z regardless of the cost. Thats why the ban on air travel is useful. It helps you see that there are some costs not worth paying. How have we come to a point where we think its OK for 99.9% of the population to suffer indignity to protect us from the other .1%? One answer is that theres no we. We didnt decide this. Somebody decided it for us.

The right goal is that we should offer choices and restrict choices if those moves enhance the human enterprise, giving us more freedom to express ourselves, to create, to enjoy, to love, to be moved, to dance, to sing, to harmonize with others. And yes, to stay safe from evil people so we can do those things. But staying safe isnt worth it if there is too much indignity or if it empowers people who do not care for me to do things that hurt me or that profit them at my expense.

If we don't put the government in its place with regard to these scanners and pat-downs, we could very well soon be forced to pass through roadway checkpoints, where we would be subjected to the same thing, including having our cars searched.What will people like Wormhole say then? Driving is not a civil right! Don't like it? Don't drive!

Quote:

Originally Posted by FineTunes

Actually it's not. Your have to pass a test and then you are licensed by the state. Your driving privileges can be revoked at any time by the state----OBTW--driving a motor vehicle isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

You will note that I have never said flying or driving are constitutional rights.
But (at the risk of hijacking the thread) here's the 6 trillion dollar question: is healthcare a right? I mean, it's not in the Constitution...

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

Yes the Constitution is only a "living document" when it comes to theft of property, abortion and gun rights. When it comes to transportation though, a horse and wagon will still do you fine!

For answers to your questions or complaints---take it to the Supremes.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

And here's another thought to ponder: When the TSA claims that they are "on the front lines of defense against terrorists and terrorism" what unspoken implication does that statement carry about the air traveling public? It seems fairly obvious, but lost on most people I suspect.

And here's another thought to ponder: When the TSA claims that they are "on the front lines of defense against terrorists and terrorism" what unspoken implication does that statement carry about the air traveling public? It seems fairly obvious, but lost on most people I suspect.

Chertoff owns a lot of shares in security companies and the guys that make the scanners. All this is capitalism at work. Everyone should be proud!
Republican policy is great!

Chertoff owns a lot of shares in security companies and the guys that make the scanners. All this is capitalism at work.

Of course that's not true and I suspect you know it. If you want to be honest you'll admit that this is not "capitalism at work" otherwise you'll continue repeating this falsehood.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wormhole

Republican policy is great!

Last I heard it was the Democrats that were in charge and these policies have continued and even become worse. In fact the porno-scanners started rolling out during 2009/2010 and the new grope-down policy was implemented only in the past couple of months. I've also heard the CEO of Rapiscan was a major donor to Barack Obama. Don't get me wrong Chertoff is evil in all this too, but he's not the only player here either. This is a bi-partisan evil.

That's the message two Congressmen today brought to the Transportation Security Administration, saying that the federal agency's new pat-down procedure appears to have gone too far.

Republican Rep. John Mica of Florida, the ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and fellow Republican Tom Petri of Wisconsin today wrote to TSA Administrator John Pistole saying that the TSA is "not achieving the proper balance between aviation security and the privacy rights of Untied States citizens.".....

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

U.S. airline pilots learned today that they'll be exempt from the invasive x-ray screening and pat-downs that have sparked a revolt across the country.

In a statement, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) announced new procedures that it says will streamline airport security.

Pilots in uniform on airline business will be allowed to pass through airport security by showing two photo IDs. The identification will be cross-checked against a flight crew database.

"Allowing these uniformed pilots, whose identity has been verified, to go through expedited screening at the checkpoint just makes for smart security and an efficient use of our resources," TSA Administrator John Pistole said in a statement.

The decision comes after pilots' unions had called on members to avoid going through the advanced x-ray screeners that produce full-body images, and they had also expressed concerns about enhanced pat-downs. A handful of pilots have said they were so traumatized by the searches that they couldn't perform their duties, though critics have accused them of making such claims to push a political agenda.....

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

What I am little surprised by is the lack of a more general and widespread liberal outrage about this. I thought this was the kind of thing that "liberals" and "progressives" were supposed to get pissed off about. Why do I get the feeling that if Bush was president they'd be screaming bloody-murder over this shit.

What I am little surprised by is the lack of a more general and widespread liberal outrage about this. I thought this was the kind of thing that "liberals" and "progressives" were supposed to get pissed off about. Why do I get the feeling that if Bush was president they'd be screaming bloody-murder over this shit.

Of course that's not true and I suspect you know it. If you want to be honest you'll admit that this is not "capitalism at work" otherwise you'll continue repeating this falsehood.

Quote:

The Chertoff Group, a Washington, D.C., security and risk management advisory firm serving corporate and government clients, was founded last month by former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff. The firm advises clients on all facets of security with a focus on prevention, preparedness, response and recovery.

Of course it's not true.
Making money of fear has never been done. Christianity does not exist and does not take money for "salvation." Bush did not say "go shopping". Halliburton did not get contracts worth billions for services provided in war time. Bush's stocks didn't rise when gas costed $ 4.50. None of this happened.

Of course it's not true.
Making money of fear has never been done. Christianity does not exist and does not take money for "salvation." Bush did not say "go shopping". Halliburton did not get contracts worth billions for services provided in war time. Bush's stocks didn't rise when gas costed $ 4.50. None of this happened.

President Obama said today he sympathizes with passenger complaints about aggressive body pat-downs at airports, but his counter-terrorism aides say they are necessary to guard against hidden explosives.

Balancing privacy and security is a "tough situation," Obama told reporters at a news conference following the NATO summit in Lisbon, Portugal.
"One of the most frustrating aspects of this fight against terrorism is that it has created a whole security apparatus around us that causes a huge inconvenience for all of us," Obama said.
Obama cited the attempted airplane attack by the so-called underwear bomber last Christmas as justification for aggressive security measures.

In fact, as the full transcript of Obama's comments shows, Obama never "admit[ted] he has no clue how intrusive TSA searches are." Rather, after Obama acknowledged that he doesn't "go through security checks to get on planes these days," so he hasn't "personally experienced some of the procedures that have been put in place by TSA," he said "what I've said to the TSA is that you have to constantly refine and measure whether what we're doing is the only way to assure the American people's safety. And you also have to think through, 'Are there ways of doing it that are less intrusive?'"

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

These twopilots might have been the cause for the TSA's policy change. Good for them - the Rosa Parks of airline pilots I wonder if all pilots nationwide had been considering joining them on say, the day before Thanksgiving. I suppose we'll never know.

By now all pilots have been extensively interviewed, fingerprinted, background checked, medically certified, drug tested ad nauseum to the point it's inconceivable they could be considered threats, and these two said enough is enough. Then there's the little-known fact that they actually fly the damn airplane. Did the TSA back down because they didn't want a Constitutional challenge from them, or was it fear of a nationwide strike?

What about the TSA "registered traveler" program? Would participants not also be exempt from the grope-a-dope program? It involves paying an annual fee (a different kind of indignity) but it may have the potential for a reasonable settlement to this issue. Of course, privacy advocates will howl at this alternative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

If we don't put the government in its place with regard to these scanners and pat-downs, we could very well soon be forced to pass through roadway checkpoints, where we would be subjected to the same thing, including having our cars searched.

That's the essence of my concern:

Quote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

A Constitutional test would clearly center around the word "unreasonable". Is it reasonable to search one's privates for no other reason than for the purpose of boarding an airplane? I don't believe case law would help support that argument, since one's person, his home, his car, his backpack may not legally be searched without a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity, or by permission. I assume one grants permission to be groped when getting an intimate TSA massage. Can an average airline passenger reasonably be considered a threat? A child? An octogenarian in a wheelchair? A blind man with a white cane?

You can refuse, and as you know flying an airplane is not a constitutional right, but so what? Neither is driving a car. Is riding a subway? How about walking around the block? That's transportation too... so can the TSA regulate walking? Riding a bike? What about sitting on a park bench? Lying in the sun?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FineTunes

For answers to your questions or complaints---take it to the Supremes.

Indeed. I don't think the government wants that though. They may lose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Quote:

Originally Posted by FineTunes

OBTW--driving a motor vehicle isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

You will note that I have never said flying or driving are constitutional rights.

Jazzguru is correct - don't confuse Constitutional rights and civil rights. Our government does not grant rights, it can only take them away. There are some that it can't - those are enumerated by the BOR, including the 9th Amendment which addresses all the rest. On the other hand "civil rights" are those generally associated with freedom from unequal treatment. Civil rights certainly exist, but when extremists shriek about violations of civil rights for every perceived injustice, it diminishes the meaning of the phrase.

If we don't put the government in its place with regard to these scanners and pat-downs, we could very well soon be forced to pass through roadway checkpoints, where we would be subjected to the same thing, including having our cars searched.What will people like Wormhole say then? Driving is not a civil right! Don't like it? Don't drive!

Quote:

Originally Posted by FineTunes

Actually it's not. Your have to pass a test and then you are licensed by the state. Your driving privileges can be revoked at any time by the state----OBTW--driving a motor vehicle isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

You will note that I have never said flying or driving are constitutional rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by john galt

Jazzguru is correct - don't confuse Constitutional rights and civil rights. Our government does not grant rights, it can only take them away. There are some that it can't - those are enumerated by the BOR, including the 9th Amendment which addresses all the rest. On the other hand "civil rights" are those generally associated with freedom from unequal treatment. Civil rights certainly exist, but when extremists shriek about violations of civil rights for every perceived injustice, it diminishes the meaning of the phrase.

It is beyond the scope of this thread to argue about the semantics of Constitutional Rights and Civil Rights. Either way, my premise that you do not have a right whether Constitutional or Civil Right to drive a car. To qualify, you must meet certain minimum standards set by each state. You must be of a certain age, you must pass a written test, you must demonstrate that you are capable of driving a motor vehicle ie a driving test and health stndards. If you meet these minimum standards, you are issued a license that the state can revoke at any time.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

... Either way, my premise that you do not have a right whether Constitutional or Civil Right to drive a car.

I don't disagree with that Fine, but the issue at hand is determining limits on government intrusion, not limits on people's activities. Comparisons to driving a car are specious, just as much as using that argument for Obamacare's individual mandate. The Federal government doesn't regulate cars or who drives them. States do. The 10th Amendment says they can.

Can you tell me what Constitutional right you have to ride the bus or walk around the block? Right - it's not there. The Constitution places limits on government; the People's rights - such as the right to walk around - are presumed to exist already.

The question will center on determining the limits of government. The 4th will make the TSA's new-found intrusiveness a difficult action to defend.

Ron Paul's proposed bill (HR 6416) cites the 4th amendment, and I believe this guy from New Jersey is preparing to argue the 10th.

EPIC has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, seeking records concerning radiation emissions and exposure associated with airport full body scanners. The Department recently implemented the scanners as a primary screening mechanism for all airline travelers. In August, many senators questioned the safety of the scanners. In September, Ralph Nader also sent a letter to the Senate expressing concern about radiation exposure. Earlier this year, EPIC requested DHS to release all information about radiation emissions. DHS failed to respond to EPIC's FOIA request and when DHS also failed to reply to EPIC's administrative appeal, EPIC filed a lawsuit in federal court. Earlier EPIC FOIA lawsuits uncovered evidence that body scanners can store and record images and that the Marshals Service had captured more than 35,000 images.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey